You have not understood the thesis the OP is proposing because you have not asked for it, nor looked at it.
I haven't looked at it you say? Hmmm... I wonder how I crafted my first response then? What was I replying to, do you think? I remember reading it... some parts of it multiple times.
Well, hey - there is one way to actually resolve this! I will take a look at the OP point by point, assess and write up my understanding of each one, and then we can juxtapose that with my initial reply and see how well it stands up! What do you think? I think its a bang-up idea - and then you can specifically point to where you think my understanding if deficient (And finally answer my question! Won't that be nice?). Here we go!
PARAGRAPH1:
Link's OP said:
God can speak in a way humans cannot. He can put signs in his speech that would indicate it's from him and beyond capability of humans. I think this is rational, as we see there is ranks to eloquence, and not everyone is capable of the same eloquence.
Here we start from the assumption that God exists. This paragraph sets up the idea that God can communicate in ways that human beings cannot produce - and implies that we might be able to discern when God's abilities in this arena are being put into play, and states that this is "rational" because we can see variance in humans capability to produce texts/writings/speech with what is here being termed "eloquence." I would here like to contend that the idea that we can "See" God at work in the heights of "eloquence" could not possibly be rational solely because we can see variance in what humans themselves can produce. What can I say - that just doesn't follow. It is a non sequitur if I have ever seen one. This paragraph basically states: "Because not everyone can produce text with the same eloquence, we can therefore assume that some text is that which God produces or inspires, and that it is beyond the capability of humans."
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 1 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
PARAGRAPH 2:
Link's OP said:
Therefore if God speaks in a way beyond all humans and challenges all humans and Jinn, to bring something like it if they don't believe it's revealed by God, I believe this is a legitimate challenge.
This paragraph is kind of funny, when you think about it. So, God is somehow there, before us, presenting us with this challenge to produce something God-like if we don't believe that the text was revealed by God. So, God is basically there, proving He exists as He is presenting the challenge in this scenario, and unfortunately for the intended seriousness of this point, the nonbeliever would be far more impressed with the presence of God (confirming His existence) than they would be worried about whether or not He inspired or wrote some text or another
Anyway - besides that little aside on this, the problem is that this basically lays it out like God states it this way: "You humans who do not believe I wrote the Quran, listen up! Prove to me that you can write in the same caliber as I, God, can, and when you can't, you must then believe that it is revealed by me, God." Even if the humans can't produce writing of the same caliber as the Quran is written (the "high level" of this caliber I would argue is actually
subjective in nature), it doesn't necessarily follow that it means the text was "revealed by God." That's another non sequitur. This time being perpetrated by God Himself in this scenario. it is just like the earlier example I brought up where someone commands me to "make a blade of grass", and when I can't, I am then supposed to admit that God had to have done it. If you can see how those two things just do not follow, then how is it that you get all tripped up when it is the Quran and God's revelation as the 2 things?
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 2 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
PARAGRAPH 3:
Link's OP said:
I also believe some of the sermons and prayers and visitations taught by Ahlulbayt (a) are beyond normal humans, but still, I can see Quran is MUCH higher in eloquence, form, and speech.
Here, an appeal is made to how great a fellow human's works were, but that it is believed that those works are beyond "normal humans" (whatever these are), and that the Quran is even further beyond even that guy's works. Once again, I would appeal here to the subjective nature of the descriptor "beyond" or "better." Eloquence is a thing that actually changes over time (believe it or not!) because what is "eloquent" to one time-period, may not be so to another. Like reading Shakespeare and the interesting turns of phrase he uses, and then comparing to what is considered eloquent in modern times. Two completely different things - and it makes sense that it would be so. And so when comparing texts written from two completely different time periods, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Certain turns of phrase or clever literary tricks simply aren't prudent for modern use, or wouldn't be employed because they are lost to that other time (not to mention that to use them now would simply be plagiarizing). But rest assured this time has its own turns of phrase and tricks - some that may even be admired thousands of years down the road. Times change, in other words. And to state that something is definitively "the best" that we will ever see (especially when that thing is regarded as an art work) is myopic at best.
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 3 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
PARAGRAPH 4:
Link's OP said:
So people can't even replicate some of the works of Ahlulbayt (a) and bring something similar to it, let alone the Quran which is signs from God in form of speech.
This paragraph basically lays out the idea that there is no hope for anyone to produce to the level of the Quran, because they can't even replicate the stylings of someone called "Ahlulbayt." Oh, and in the last sentence, we see again the assumption that God exists, and claims that the Quran is, definitively (with no qualifiers) "signs from God in the forms of speech." Another one of the reason's I responded by asking that we take all this "back to formula" and start with the proposition "God exists."
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 4 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
PARAGRAPH 5:
Link's OP said:
I believe it's legitimate challenge, bring something like it or akin to it. Another challenge it poses which is fair, you claim it's not guidance from God, then bring something more guiding than it.
So, in this paragraph, we see the same sort of thing, but the challenge then becomes that we bring something to the table even "more guiding" than the Quran if we believe that God was not the ultimate generator of the text - and the implication is most certainly that, if we can't do so, then we must infer that God exists and authored the Quran. This, again, is entirely subjective. Entirely. And I can literally prove it. The idea of something being "more guiding" first requires a goal as to what we are being guided toward. As a really simple example, if we are defining something being "more guiding" as whether or not it produces the desired results in a vast majority (if not all) cases, then I would say that, by that criteria, LEGO assembly instructions are vastly "more guiding" than the Quran can ever hope to be. Boom.
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 5 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
PARAGRAPH 6:
Link's OP said:
Both challenges are fair from my perspective.
I'm not quite sure what there is to even misunderstand here - but I would just like to say that I don't think these "challenges" are at all rational, let alone "fair," and for the reasons covered in the aforementioned points.
Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 6 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.
And my ultimate point in the very first post I made in this thread (the only one before you started up with me @firedragon):
A Vestigial Mote said:
Point being - substituting the "eloquence" of the Quran as executed by its authors DOES NOT suddenly serve as a proof of God's having had to have been involved in its crafting.
My pointing out the various non sequiturs being employed in the OP is sufficient enough to explain my stance on this - and as you can see, I did read the OP, and my first comment STILL STANDS.